PDA

View Full Version : Law: Killing someone who is terminally ill under their request


Taak Farst
09-23-2009, 06:39 PM
In the UK, It is now legal to kill someone, (more specifically help with suicide) who is terminally ill under their request, only for compassionate reasons.

I'll find a source and edit it in - but for now - thoughts?

Me, I think, Finally.
I think it's a law that's very overdue and basically I think it's a needed legalization.
That's all I can really say for now

Edit: Hmm can't seem to find a source - anyone got one?

Astor
09-23-2009, 06:58 PM
In the UK, It is now legal to kill someone, (more specifically help with suicide) who is terminally ill under their request, only for compassionate reasons.

I'll find a source and edit it in - but for now - thoughts?

Me, I think, Finally.
I think it's a law that's very overdue and basically I think it's a needed legalization.
That's all I can really say for now

Edit: Hmm can't seem to find a source - anyone got one?

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.

All these guidelines do is clarify the existing law (which means it's still illegal). The clarifications explain what circumstances will be taken into account in each case. Nowhere do they state that it assisted suicide is now legal in the UK, and rightly so.

This BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8270320.stm) will clarify things.

I don't know whether it should be made legal - it's a very heated issue, and simply declaring assisted suicide as legal could potentially leave it open to all kinds of abuse. I do think the clarification was long overdue, however.

Taak Farst
09-23-2009, 07:11 PM
I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.

All these guidelines do is clarify the existing law (which means it's still illegal). The clarifications explain what circumstances will be taken into account in each case. Nowhere do they state that it assisted suicide is now legal in the UK, and rightly so.

This BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8270320.stm) will clarify things.

I don't know whether it should be made legal - it's a very heated issue, and simply declaring assisted suicide as legal could potentially leave it open to all kinds of abuse. I do think the clarification was long overdue, however.

huh, thats not wat was said on the radio :O

It should be made legal imo

jonathan7
09-23-2009, 07:19 PM
It should be made legal imo

My name is Harold Shipman, can I write your will and then come and visit? :xp:

(This was just a joke, seeing as some seemed to think it was snarky)

Jae Onasi
09-23-2009, 08:26 PM
Shipman and Kevorkian can have tea together before going to their 'guest' for dinner.


Seriously, this is ripe for abuse, so I'm not generally in favor of being able to end someone else's life. However, I've also seen plenty of people suffer their last days. What we do need to do at the very least is research on pain control and maximizing end-of-life positive experiences to make sure that people don't suffer their last days.

Laura Muffin
09-23-2009, 09:40 PM
I don't see a big diff between assisted suicide and a family member signing papers to "pull the plug" when a loved one can't make the decision themselves and have become terminal.

On that note, I still think it's sad :(

Sabretooth
09-23-2009, 10:45 PM
I happen to be one of the six people that must have bothered to read the official timeline on the Unreal Tournament 2004 homepage. According to it, the official canon says that the New Earth Government legalised consensual murder (not very far from this). This opens the gates to the Tournament, a formerly underground gladiatorial competition where the losers die and the winners win popularity and cash. Think WWE with guns.

While this won't happen in the scenario, it's a small window of the kind of abuse possible. I am therefore, naturally against this. I think that every case of euthanasia should be taken up in court, to ensure complete justice on each case, just like for execution. To end a life is a serious deal.

mimartin
09-24-2009, 12:04 PM
Having witnessed my father, my step-mother and most recently and more closely my step-father as they were slowly ravaged by cancer I really have mixed emotions about this subject. I’ve always thought of suicide as selfish. However, after watching the people I love suffer my perspective has changed. I’m still against throwing away anything as precious as life; however I will not condemn such a practice after watching how they suffered.

One of my biggest fears when setting with my step-father was that he would ask for my help in such a matter. He had bone cancer and was confined to the bed. Once or twice I do believe he came close to asking. I don’t know what stopped him, but I am glad he did not ask because I do not honestly know what I would have done. I could never see myself taking a human life, but I also cannot imagine the pain he was suffering. Either way, no law would have played any part in my decision had he asked.

Web Rider
09-24-2009, 01:41 PM
Based on age, the specific illness, estimated life expectancy, and physical ability to recover, I think it should be ok to "pull the plug" in very specific situations. Nobody wants to watch a loved one essentially decay while alive, and I think it's unreasonable to expect children, who may not be financially strong enough to support them, care for their parents or grandparents long after there's any real reason to do so.

My grandma is a person, not just a body, keeping her physically alive while she's mentally dead would be more hurtful than letting her die. People are supposed to die when they become very old, very ill, and very weak. And at some point, we forgot that this is natural. I agree there is room for abuse, there is always room for abuse in any system and this has not stopped, and will never stop all abuse. We don't deny freedom of speech because some people are jerks, we don't deny the right to vote because some people are dumb.

Under the limitations of very specific circumstances, I think it's OK to let a person die when there is really no hope of improvement. There is no reason we need to keep people around well beyond the time that their mind and body has deteriorated into nothing. Do I know what the best outline for the situation is? Of course not. That's up for doctors, politicians, and families to decide. Though I wish we could take "politicians" out of that mix.

mur'phon
09-24-2009, 01:50 PM
I'm generaly in favor of asisted suicide simply because I believe people deserve the right to die, even if they are not capable of doing so themselves. While there should be a lot of regulations (like they for instance have in the Netherlands linky (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2000-01/01rn31.htm)). I don't see why people shouldn't be alowed to end their life when in pain. And so far, it doesen't even seem to increase the number of such suicides linky (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYqmc4psyctY).

Pho3nix
09-24-2009, 02:17 PM
I believe everyone should have the right to end their lives, as comfortably as possible.

urluckyday
09-25-2009, 12:04 AM
I personally can't imagine at any time no matter how sick or in pain that I would want to end my life. So by this idea, I don't support such laws. To me, Life is too precious to have to even consider ending it intentionally. Even if it means I'm making the choice for someone else, I wouldn't vote for a law like this...

Just my view. I'm not the kind to be strongly apposed to people who disagree with my points. Their points are valid too but I usually base my opinions on how I would act in my own life changing situations.

jrrtoken
09-25-2009, 07:27 AM
I personally can't imagine at any time no matter how sick or in pain that I would want to end my life.Emphasis mine; that's the key word there. You might not be comfortable with the idea of euthanasia, but there's a very good chance that others would be willing to take their own lives to escape a tremendous amount of suffering. Therefore, this is why assisted suicide should be legalized for this matter in question.

urluckyday
09-25-2009, 10:02 AM
^Right, I understand that my opinion isn't what these people would be thinking. However, because I value life so highly, I personally don't think it's right for anyone to end their lives. I was just putting it in a personal perspective. Which is how I usually come to terms with my decisions.

Like I said, my view differs with the ones who are trying to die, but because I make my decisions based on my own life, I'd have to go against this particular law.

mur'phon
09-25-2009, 11:12 AM
The problem is that you are using your admitedly subjective views as a basis for a law that'll apply to people who do not share it. As an example I personally would never want to listen to techno music, but it doesen't mean I'd vote in favor of a law banning it.:)

urluckyday
09-25-2009, 11:16 AM
^True, but isn't that the basis for all laws. Take abortion for example (I personally don't care but let's say hypothetically that I'm against it)...because of my personal views and opinions (subjective), wouldn't that mean that I would want it banned? Which is how it's done every day in law.

machievelli
09-25-2009, 12:13 PM
There are times when the 'quality of life' issue becomes a problem, especially in the assisted suicide situation. A few years ago a woman was on full life support and the husband wanted to end it, and got the court to agree. However in her case, while she was able to breathe and had a heartbeat without support, she was incapable of cognitive functions. The court allowed that she could be removed from life support, but in her case this meant no food or water, no more.

Such laws will always have people giving knee-jerk reactions. I had expressed once to a co worker that I wasn't worried about dying, and her reaction was that I'd whine like a baby if I were bleeding to death. Yet that is not what I meant. I had meant that if I had a terminal illness I would request that they not expend heroic efforts to keep me here. That is why eventually I will have to add DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) to my medical files. Since I only see doctor when I feel sick, obviously this will not happen anytime soon.

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
09-26-2009, 09:21 PM
I believe everyone should have the right to end their lives, as comfortably as possible.

i couldn't agree LESS... as a Catholic i believe life should end when god wishes it to end - not when humans wish it to end

Web Rider
09-27-2009, 12:06 AM
i couldn't agree LESS... as a Catholic i believe life should end when god wishes it to end - not when humans wish it to end

By those standards, then, shouldn't it be equally wrong to attempt to preserve a dying life? Clearly God it TRYING to end it, and humans are getting in the way. If you say yes, then your point is really somewhat irrelevant as you're saying people should be allowed to die if "it's their time", which is generally the case in these situations.

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
09-27-2009, 12:15 AM
God gives humans their own free will. If they get drunk and die in a car accident that doesn't mean he WANTED it. Euthenasia is still euthenasia even if the victim WANTS it.
(The Catholic church is srongly against euthenasia)

Jae Onasi
09-27-2009, 12:23 AM
I don't see a big diff between assisted suicide and a family member signing papers to "pull the plug" when a loved one can't make the decision themselves and have become terminal.

On that note, I still think it's sad :(
In the case of 'pulling the plug', that's talking about discontinuing the use of machines, usually respirators, or medications that are artificially keeping someone alive who would have died otherwise. Assisted suicide is killing someone who is not already on life-support. There is a difference in that case, albeit subtle.

Web Rider
09-27-2009, 12:41 AM
God gives humans their own free will. If they get drunk and die in a car accident that doesn't mean he WANTED it. Euthenasia is still euthenasia even if the victim WANTS it.
(The Catholic church is srongly against euthenasia)

So people have the right to die in excruciating pain, but not peacefully?

Jae Onasi
09-27-2009, 12:45 AM
So people have the right to die in excruciating pain, but not peacefully?
Those are not the the only options, Web Rider. ;) Dying with good pain control under the care of expert hospice nursing and family support is also an option.

Pho3nix
09-27-2009, 01:18 PM
i couldn't agree LESS... as a Catholic i believe life should end when god wishes it to end - not when humans wish it to end
Good for you.

I'm glad you're not old enough to vote mate.

Astor
09-27-2009, 01:34 PM
i couldn't agree LESS... as a Catholic i believe life should end when god wishes it to end - not when humans wish it to end

While I respect your religious convictions, I believe that if someone is determined to end their own life, and have been judged to be of sound mind, then that's between them and whatever beliefs they hold.

I'm still not entirely sure about assisted suicide, but if someone decides to end their life on their own, instead of prolonging their own suffering (and I do accept Jae's point that you can avoid pain through the use of painkillers and other medication), then that's their decision.

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
09-27-2009, 03:45 PM
While I respect your religious convictions, I believe that if someone is determined to end their own life, and have been judged to be of sound mind, then that's between them and whatever beliefs they hold.

I'm still not entirely sure about assisted suicide, but if someone decides to end their life on their own, instead of prolonging their own suffering (and I do accept Jae's point that you can avoid pain through the use of painkillers and other medication), then that's their decision.

In my views wanting to KILL yourself is suicide even if if your not the one "pulling the trigger".

Web Rider
09-27-2009, 03:55 PM
In my views wanting to KILL yourself is suicide even if if your not the one "pulling the trigger".

But is a person really alive if they are stuck in a bed, attached to massive machines that are doing the functions of their bodies for them? In which case, if they are, or are not, do they, in your opinion, have the right to turn off those machines? And if they do, should doctors be allowed to make their death(which IS what will happen), as comfortable as possible?

Q
09-27-2009, 05:51 PM
@Mand'alor: While it is fine that you believe what you believe, not everyone likes being forced to live according to another's belief system.

My belief is that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they are not harming another.

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
09-27-2009, 07:18 PM
@The Jekk'Jekk Tarr Mandalore: While it is fine that you believe what you believe, not everyone likes being forced to live according to another's belief system.

My belief is that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they are not harming another.

and they shouldn't be able to harm themselves.

@everyone: Wanting to die by contract is the same as suicide. So contract or no contract, by gun or by medicine killing is killing!

Astor
09-27-2009, 07:23 PM
and they shouldn't be able to harm themselves.

Why not? You claim that God gave people free will, so surely they can use that free will to harm (and even kill) themselves?

And why should it concern others if that is what the person wants?

mur'phon
09-27-2009, 07:25 PM
Why shouldn't someone be able to harm themselves? Who are the state to determine what its citzens can do of their own free will to their own body?
I'm genuinly curious here.

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
09-27-2009, 07:27 PM
@The Jekk'Jekk Tarr Mandalore: While it is fine that you believe what you believe, not everyone likes being forced to live according to another's belief system.

My belief is that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they are not harming another.

Why not? You claim that God gave people free will, so surely they can use that free will to harm (and even kill) themselves?

And why should it concern others if that is what the person wants?

Why shouldn't someone be able to harm themselves? Who are the state to determine what its citzens can do of their own free will to their own body?
I'm genuinly curious here.

yes God gave them free will, but he also gave them the ten commandments. the commandment "do not kill" (or harm) also goes for yourself

mur'phon
09-27-2009, 07:33 PM
The commandments are fine enough reason for those who choose to folow them. However we are now talking about what the law should say, and the law should not be grounded merely in a spesific religious belief.

Q
09-27-2009, 10:47 PM
yes God gave them free will, but he also gave them the ten commandments. the commandment "do not kill" (or harm) also goes for yourself
Is it really necessary to explain that the majority of the earth's population is not Judeo-Christian and does not share your world-view?

Litofsky
09-27-2009, 11:40 PM
Is it really necessary to explain that the majority of the earth's population is not Judeo-Christian and does not share your world-view?

I do believe so.

With all possible respect, Jekk, a large percentage of the world does not hold to the values/beliefs of the Bible, and, especially in country that claims to be tolerant in all senses of the word, it does an injustice to all of us to pass laws that are based off of religious views.

Thus, creating laws based off of a religious idea would be doing a disservice to those who fought and died to help preserve our nation and it's ideals (clicky to learn about religious freedom in the United States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Amendment).

Web Rider
09-27-2009, 11:53 PM
and they shouldn't be able to harm themselves.

@everyone: Wanting to die by contract is the same as suicide. So contract or no contract, by gun or by medicine killing is killing!

Which only further proves you're NOT listening. I keep asking and you keep ignoring the question of: Should we try to keep a dying person alive well beyond when they would have naturally died? Or should we allow the dying to die when their time has come, and if so, should we be allowed to make it comfortable.

I'm not talking about killing anyone, I'm not talking about harming anyone, i'm asking if people have the right to die when their body is no longer capable of living?

jonathan7
09-28-2009, 10:17 AM
yes God gave them free will, but he also gave them the ten commandments. the commandment "do not kill" (or harm) also goes for yourself

Firstly, you do seem to be ignoring the bits of the Bible where God orders people to kill others, read the book of Joshua - they killed all the people who occupied the land already.

I don't wish to incur the wrath of DI here, as he is far more qualified than I to comment on Catholicism and its associated doctrines and history. However your argument would at least to me fall down for several reasons; because the Roman Catholic Church, and Pope Urban II ordered the First Crusade et al; in which an awful lot of people were murdered.

It's not that I agree with euthanasia, but you haven't put up a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed; you've posted material which hasn't read others points, and seems to lack sensitivity in a most sensitive of topics. Quite a few of us have had to watch loved ones die excruciating deaths.

For an example on this topic, my dad is a Doctor (a GP) - he will never give an abortion because of his religious inclinations (he passes them onto other doctors) - but with regards euthanasia while he disagrees with it, someone for instance suffering from Cystic Fibrosis they die a horrible death; and even my dad is torn on what the patient should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Furthermore, even if what you believe is a universal absolute, why are you expecting others who do not believe what you believe to act as you do? It would seem to me, at least if you accept the Biblical portrait of Jesus, he chose love over force as a means of communicating with others. The loving thing to do is to adequately explain why you hold a position and why that is the best course of action and to do that sensitively something you have failed to do on epic proportions.

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
09-28-2009, 12:47 PM
I do believe so.

With all possible respect, Jekk, a large percentage of the world does not hold to the values/beliefs of the Bible, and, especially in country that claims to be tolerant in all senses of the word, it does an injustice to all of us to pass laws that are based off of religious views.

Thus, creating laws based off of a religious idea would be doing a disservice to those who fought and died to help preserve our nation and it's ideals (clicky to learn about religious freedom in the United States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Amendment).

it doesn't matter. I say it should still be consiered suicide. ugh.... i think too much :p
BTW just call me Scav :thmbup1:


Which only further proves you're NOT listening. I keep asking and you keep ignoring the question of: Should we try to keep a dying person alive well beyond when they would have naturally died? Or should we allow the dying to die when their time has come, and if so, should we be allowed to make it comfortable.

I'm not talking about killing anyone, I'm not talking about harming anyone, i'm asking if people have the right to die when their body is no longer capable of living?

i don't think they should. if God wishes them to die then i say let them die naturaly. i say there should be NO say in it for ANYONE. sure you should give them medicines to help them live, but you shouldn't KILL them. Being pro-life isn't just being against abortion.

Firstly, you do seem to be ignoring the bits of the Bible where God orders people to kill others, read the book of Joshua - they killed all the people who occupied the land already.

I don't wish to incur the wrath of DI here, as he is far more qualified than I to comment on Catholicism and its associated doctrines and history. However your argument would at least to me fall down for several reasons; because the Roman Catholic Church, and Pope Urban II ordered the First Crusade et al; in which an awful lot of people were murdered.

It's not that I agree with euthanasia, but you haven't put up a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed; you've posted material which hasn't read others points, and seems to lack sensitivity in a most sensitive of topics. Quite a few of us have had to watch loved ones die excruciating deaths.

For an example on this topic, my dad is a Doctor (a GP) - he will never give an abortion because of his religious inclinations (he passes them onto other doctors) - but with regards euthanasia while he disagrees with it, someone for instance suffering from Cystic Fibrosis they die a horrible death; and even my dad is torn on what the patient should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Furthermore, even if what you believe is a universal absolute, why are you expecting others who do not believe what you believe to act as you do? It would seem to me, at least if you accept the Biblical portrait of Jesus, he chose love over force as a means of communicating with others. The loving thing to do is to adequately explain why you hold a position and why that is the best course of action – and to do that sensitively something you have failed to do on epic proportions.

you make a good point. But God orders people to fight their ENEMEYS. not EACH OTHER. Suicide is suicide even if it's legal. and onece again i think too much... thats what i get for being homeschooled :p

Mono_Giganto
09-28-2009, 01:01 PM
it doesn't matter. I say it should still be consiered suicide. ugh.... i think too much :p
BTW just call me Scav :thmbup1:


Personally I'd say that, at least with regards to this topic, you're thinking too little. You're clinging to a single black-and-white statement without really providing any support for it.

i don't think they should. if God wishes them to die then i say let them die naturaly. i say there should be NO say in it for ANYONE. sure you should give them medicines to help them live, but you shouldn't KILL them. Being pro-life isn't just being against abortion.

Here, you contradict yourself. "Let them die if God wants them to die, but still try and help them live." You're flip-flopping sides.

you make a good point. But God orders people to fight their ENEMEYS. not EACH OTHER. Suicide is suicide even if it's legal. and onece again i think too much... thats what i get for being homeschooled :p

Are we not all human? By fighting our enemies, are we not fighting each other as well? I fail to see how that justifies J7's point.

jonathan7
09-28-2009, 01:06 PM
you make a good point. But God orders people to fight their ENEMEYS. not EACH OTHER. Suicide is suicide even if it's legal. and onece again i think too much... thats what i get for being homeschooled :p

Interestingly the Bible actually neglects to mention suicide; Click Me (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=suicide&version1=31&searchtype=all). So why exactly are individuals not allowed to commit suicide? And your post contradicts Jesus himself and the 10 commandments (Thou Shalt not Kill and Love your enemies). Please could you provide the Biblical basis for your position?

Furthermore I'm not entirely sure why you think your thinking too much, or what correlation thinking and being home schooled has? Your thinking seems to have neglected the central point of my last post.

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
09-28-2009, 01:15 PM
Interestingly the Bible actually neglects to mention suicide; Click Me (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=suicide&version1=31&searchtype=all). So why exactly are individuals not allowed to commit suicide? And your post contradicts Jesus himself and the 10 commandments (Thou Shalt not Kill and Love your enemies). Please could you provide the Biblical basis for your position?

Furthermore I'm not entirely sure why you think your thinking too much, or what correlation thinking and being home schooled has? Your thinking seems to have neglected the central point of my last post.

the 5th commandment goes for harming YOURSELF as well as others. The Pope has said it him self. and the pope is infalable when taching of the catholic faith.

Astor
09-28-2009, 01:17 PM
the 5th commandment goes for harming YOURSELF as well as others. The Pope has said it him self. and the pope is infalable when taching of the catholic faith.

That's the Catholic faith, though. Not everybody is a Catholic, so the Pope's word isn't likely to prevent them seeking an end to their suffering if they choose to.

jonathan7
09-28-2009, 01:18 PM
Ok, Rule 5 of Kavars Rules (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=175866) is being inacted. It says thus;

5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.

You are all also politely reminded that proper grammer is appreciated and in the Rules of both SW:K generally and Kavars specifically.

-- j7

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
09-28-2009, 01:19 PM
That's the Catholic faith, though. Not everybody is a Catholic, so the Pope's word isn't likely to prevent them seeking an end to their suffering if they choose to.

Yes but every religion and government I know of is against suicide and assisted suicide... My youthful mind needs a break :p

Astor
09-28-2009, 01:30 PM
yes but every religion and government i know of is against suicide and assisted suicide... my youthful mind needs a break :p

Not so.

Active Euthanasia is ilegal in China and Hong Kong but has seen growing support recently, and there is legislation allowing a terminally ill person to end their life in the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland & Japan.

I may be wrong, but I also believe it is legal in several US States.

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that Hinduism sees the ending of anothers suffering as a good deed, even though ending a life is a bad thing to do, but conversely, keeping a person alive on machinery is also seen as a bad deed.

So, I guess it's pretty much a grey area, but I don't think that Hinduism is 'against' it as vehemently as other religions.

Also, passive Euthanasia has some support in Shinto (the religion of Japan).

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
09-28-2009, 01:36 PM
Well it would seem it's hard for a 13 year old to post his beliefs... Well my view of it is that it shouldn't be legal and with that I retire from this thread.

Sabretooth
09-28-2009, 02:52 PM
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that Hinduism sees the ending of anothers suffering as a good deed, even though ending a life is a bad thing to do, but conversely, keeping a person alive on machinery is also seen as a bad deed.

While largely accurate, I'm not quite sure how much I'd agree with Hinduism's stance that keeping a person alive on machinery would be a bad deed.

It is understood that Hinduism construes a system of birth/rebirth, such that birth and death are events assigned to specific times and events, and they are disrupted by humans, by murder, suicide and so on.

Yet at the same time, Hinduism does not take this as a necessarily punishable thing, as war is quite clearly sanctioned in Hindu works. The "time" for a person to die therefore, need not be necessarily considered the time they would naturally die, but more accurately, the time that fate has set forth for them to die on.

This is necessary to sanction the invention of medicine, as applying specific medicine, especially artificially synthesised ones that would have been naturally available otherwise, prolong life just as any machine would. Seeing the Ayurveda, the ancient Hindu tome of medicine, as well as the many references to medicine in Hindu texts, it is fairly clear that medicine is never an issue, even if it is used to prolong life beyond its natural limits (see increasing lifespan over historical reference).

I do not see therefore, how using a machine to prolong life would be incompatible with Hindu beliefs. As for whether Euthanasia may be sanctioned, I'd think not. The good and bad things a person experiences are a result of their Karma, both in the current life and the ones before it. Suicide being a bad deed, only adds to the bad Karma and will only make your future lives miserable (not mention you might be reincarnated as a rat or a krill).

As stated before, a complex issue that I don't believe Hinduism addresses directly.

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-28-2009, 06:24 PM
Well it would seem it's hard for a 13 year old to post his beliefs... Well my view of it is that it shouldn't be legal and with that I retire from this thread.

the idea is to post your opinion, allow others to respond, then try to find inconsistencies in their logic or information, then rinse and repeat. you've kinda sorta done the first step (i refuse to give you the whole step until you post your opinion and not the opinions of government and religious officials), then the second step, then gone back to the first step.

kindly stop whining about how you can't express your views just because others want to debate the subject at hand, and perhaps even expand their views on the subject and not just regurgitate the views of others or simply blog about their opinions on a forum tia

Delta 62
09-28-2009, 06:28 PM
Personaly,i think it depends on the seriousness of the illness....if they have the cold or flu then no....if they are terminally ill then yes

mur'phon
09-28-2009, 06:36 PM
Well it is not as if any government vould get away with having flu be reason enough to do waste medical staffs time with killing them.Not that it would matter anyway as a person with the flu would be perfectly capable of taking a dive from the sixth floor. The least serious illness AFAIK that someone who requested the procedure had was a young fanaticall sportsman (rugby I think) who got paralyzed from his neck down, though again, afaik he is pretty much alone when it comes to making the choice without a terminal ilness.

Astor
09-28-2009, 06:37 PM
While largely accurate, I'm not quite sure how much I'd agree with Hinduism's stance that keeping a person alive on machinery would be a bad deed...

...As stated before, a complex issue that I don't believe Hinduism addresses directly.

Thanks for your elaboration, Sabre, it made for interesting reading.

Personaly,i think it depends on the seriousness of the illness....if they have the cold or flu then no....if they are terminally ill then yes

I think that it would definitely have to be on a case by case basis - any blanket legislation would likely be too vague.

Although I can't see someone requesting physician-assisted suicide due to a light case of the sniffles, i'm pretty sure they'd be laughed out of any doctor's surgery or hospital. :lol:

Delta 62
09-28-2009, 06:39 PM
hehe...i see your point though.

p.s i agree about the sniffles thing....it would be funny to be there when the person said they would like assisted suicide because of the sniffles :lol::lol::lol: :cowdance